Get Page Info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the field set that will come back, but nothing about lookup failures (unknown page name/id), permissions, or fallback behavior when the default page is ambiguous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, listing the return fields compactly. It is efficient, though it leaves no room for the routing detail an agent would benefit from.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the essentials are present. The gaps are the relationship to get_page_insights and behavior when the page identifier doesn't resolve, which the description never addresses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'page' parameter is well documented there, including the default-page fallback, so the schema carries the burden. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema about accepting a name vs. an id or how ambiguity is resolved.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Page's profile') and enumerates the fields returned (name, category, about, link, audience size). An agent can distinguish it from list_pages, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related get_page_insights sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_page_insights for metrics or list_pages for enumeration. The only routing hint ('omit to use the default Page') lives in the schema, not the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.